Monitoring Hate Crime - CEP, the European Organisation for ...

Monitoring Hate Crime and Some Comparative Law Annotations 

Dr. iur. Irene Sagel-Grande, LLM 

University of Groningen, The Netherlands 

1. Introduction 

Since my short essay on “Hate Crime, Comparative Law Annotations” was written in the 

framework of the EU AGIS Programme in 2006 1 , several new studies were published that 

improved our knowledge about “hate crime”. Some of these publications also complemented 

my essay. Therefore the aim of my contribution of today is not to look back to the 2006 essay, 

but to discuss three fundamental questions of importance for further studies and research in 

the perspective of some new findings: the concepts of “hate crime” and “criminal 

discrimination”, research results on criminal discrimination and legal diversity in the 

European Union. Concerning recent research results I am confining to some Dutch 

publications of the period 2005 - 2008. 

2. What is Hate Crime 

The term “hate crime” was developed in the United States of America where it is juridical 

relevant. Meanwhile this term is in use in Europe too. In England it is often used instead of 

the official term “racially aggravated offences” 2 , in Germany one is talking about 

“Hasskriminalität” and in the Netherlands the English word itself was introduced into Dutch 

language. The question, however is, whether we should make use of the term “hate crime” on 

the continent. 

The US Congress defined a hate crime as a crime in which “the defendant’s conduct was 

motivated by hatred, bias or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, colour, religion, 

national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual 

or group of individuals”. Later disability was added to the list. 

Speaking in criminal law terms most offences defined by Penal Codes or in case law can be 

categorized as “hate crimes” if motivated by hatred: 

1 Irene Sagel-Grande, Hate Crime. Comparative Law Annotations, Groningen University 2006, ISBN 90-367- 

2743-X. 

2 Crime and Disorder Act 1998, Part II, Art. 28-36. 

1

Murder or homicide as well as bodily injury, damage of property, offensive graffiti, insult, 

intimidation, vandalism, obscene telephone calls etc. Victim of “hate crimes” can be a person, 

a group of persons, an organisation, a state or religious institutions. 3 

All “hate crime” consists of criminalized acts or omissions that become “hate crimes” by the 

subjective motivation of the offender only and it is just the motivation of the offender that is 

generally so extremely difficult to recognize and to prove. Only in some cases circumstantial 

evidence will make the offender’s intent obvious. 

Often a background investigation of the accused or eyewitness reports of the crime are the 

only means to detect the offender’s intent. That is even more a weak basis as legislators in 

some countries (United States of America, England and Belgium) are convinced that if an 

offence was motivated by hatred it is automatically a qualified offence that must be punished 

with more hardship than ordinary offences. But is it correct indeed, to reproach somebody 

extra for his or her motives In literature and by practice there are different answers given to 

this question in Europe. In the absence of clear definitions and common criteria about what 

the motives must be like to qualify an ordinary offence to become a hate crime a lot of doubts 

and uncertainties arise. Furthermore subjective motives are judged by the subjective opinions 

of the police and the public prosecutors 4 who have to decide whether the offence committed 

was a “hate crime” or not. The “hate crime concept” cannot offer legal certainty 5 and thus it 

is not in conformity with the principle of legality. 6 Obviously this is a major problem and an 

argument against adopting the term “hate crime”. 

The importance of this avoidance is stressed by the not less important circumstance that the 

term “hate crime” points so strongly in the direction of rather spectacular incidents of violent 

crime. In reality however, there is a high number of not at all spectacular discriminatory 

offences disturbing public peace as well as the well-being of those becoming victims of 

criminal and other discrimination, while the extent of intense racist violence and crime is 

according to empirical research relatively moderate. 7 

The considerable difference between the American hate crime concept and our criminal 

discrimination concept is the result of the fact that in America the importance given to 

freedom of speech does not allow the creation of something like our concept of specific 

3 See for example 422.6 California Penal Code 

4 Ch. Brants, R. Kool, A. Rignalda, Strafbare discriminatie, Willem Pompe Instituut voor Strafrechtspleging, 

Universiteit Utrecht; WODC, Ministerie van Justitie, 2007, p. 240. 

5 Rechtssicherheit. 

6 Ch. Brants, R. Kool, A. Rignalda, Strafbare discriminatie, Willem Pompe Instituut voor Strafrechtspleging, 

UU, WODC, Ministerie van Justitie, 2007, p. 239. 

7 Ch. Brants, R. Kool, A. Rignalda, WODC, Ministerie van Justitie, Strafbare discriminatie, p. 246. 

2

criminal discrimination. There must happen spectacular incidents indeed, before the freedom 

of speech can be affected, may it just be indirectly. 

There is also a third reason pleading against the term “hate crime” namely the inevitable 

relation of reactions and actions. In the case of “hate crime” the term suggests something 

extraordinary mean and wrong and automatically causes a subconscious urge to use 

corresponding reactions that can easily be overreactions. The risk of overreaction might not 

be extremely high in prosecuting and sentencing, but possibly in connection with detecting 

activities by the police and even more in reporting about “hate crime” in the media. The last 

being of great influence on public opinion and able to cause unrealistic, eventually even very 

exaggerated views that can bring on commotion, feelings of insecurity and hostility against 

certain groups in society. These emotions can also result in aggression and violence, perhaps 

also in feeling the need of making one’s own justice, all reactions that are a threat for 

community life and therefore must be prevented. 

In the title of this paper I conformed with the title of this conference, although I am convinced 

that it is more adequate and not only from a legal, but also from a psychological point of view 

better to use the term “criminal discrimination” instead of the term “hate crime”. 

3. What is Criminal Discrimination 

3.1 Criminal Discrimination as defined by the Dutch Penal Code 

In the Dutch Penal Code several important terms are defined in the Art. 78 – Art. 90octies. 

Art. 90quater explains what the meaning of “discrimination” is. It reads as follows: 

“Discrimination or to discriminate must be understood as every kind of distinction, every 

exclusion, restriction or preference that has the aim or can have the consequence that the 

recognition, the use or the practice on equal terms of human rights and fundamental political, 

economic, social or cultural freedoms or of liberties in other fields of social life is, undone or 

affected” (Art. 137c – Art. 137g , Art. 429 quarter Dutch Penal Code). 8 

In the Art. 137c – Art. 137g mainly the following is criminalized: 

8 Art. 90quater: 

“Onder discriminatie of discrimineren wordt verstaan elke vorm van onderscheid, elke uitsluiting, beperking of 

voorkeur, die ten doel heeft of ten gevolg kan hebben dat de erkenning, het genot of de uitoefening op voet van 

gelijkheid van de rechten van de mens en de fundamentele vrijheden op politiek, economisch, sociaal of 

cultureel terrein of op andere terreinen van het maatschappelijke leven, wordt teniet gedaan of aangetast.” 

3

1. Insulting a group of people because of their race, religion, philosophy of life, their 

hetero- or homosexual nature or their bodily, psychical or intellectual handicap, Art. 

137c Dutch Penal Code. 

2. Inciting to hatred or discrimination of people or acting violently against people 

because of their race, religion or philosophy of life, their gender, their hetero- or 

homosexual nature or their bodily, psychical or intellectual handicap, Art. 137d Dutch 

Penal Code. 

3. Making public insulting utterances, not for realistic information, Art. 137e Dutch 

Penal Code. 

4. Support of discriminative activities, Art. 137f Dutch Penal Code. 

5. Discrimination in connection with practising a profession or an office, Art. 137g 

Dutch Penal Code. 

6. Discriminating while practising official duties, Art. 429quater Dutch Penal Code. 

Since some years, in the cases of Art. 137c and d the maximum prison sentence can be 2 

years, in cases of Art. 137e and g one year and in cases of Art. 137f Dutch Penal Code 3 

months. 9 In all cases falling under the Art. 137c-g instead of a prison sentence a fine can be 

imposed, the maximum being a fine of the forth category for the more serious offences, what 

means 16. 750 Euro, Art. 23 Dutch Penal Code. There do not exist special sentencing minima 

in the Netherlands. The general minimum for prison sentences for a certain time is one day 

for all offences and for fines it is 3 Euro. In consequence of these sentencing rules the 

freedom for decision making of the Dutch judge is rather great. 

Since the Instruction ‘Discrimination’ and the Guideline ‘Criminal proceeding in cases of 

criminal discrimination’ of the Five Attorneys General 10 came into force some years ago 

prosecution on these cases was intensified. In certain, in the guideline precisely summarized, 

serious cases for example the public prosecutors are now obliged to demand a 25% higher 

penalty. Furthermore, there were specialized public prosecutors appointed and two national 

centres founded where expertise on discrimination problems is gathered. 

9 Act of Parliament of 20 XI 2003, Staatsblad 2003, 480. 

10 Richtlijn voor stafvordering discriminatie, Staatscourant 2000, 63 and 2003,61, Aanwijzing discriminatie, 

Staatscourant 2003, 61. A new Instruction is about to be prepared. 

4

Although the maxima of the sentences for specific discrimination were extended only some 

years ago, the need of further raising was under discussion in Parliament and also in public 

again recently. 

3.2 Specific and common criminal discrimination 

In the Netherlands one differentiates between specific and common criminal discrimination. 

Specific criminal discrimination are discriminatory utterances or other expressions 

specifically criminalised in the Dutch Penal Code. 11 In cases of specific criminal 

discrimination punishability derives from the objectively discriminative content or effect of a 

certain uttering or other behaviour. With the term common criminal discrimination those 

offences are characterised that are criminal offences not being discriminatory as such but that 

can get a discriminatory character by the offender’s motives. 

Criminalisation in these cases is based on the offence committed, for example bodily injury or 

arson. If any criminal offence resulted from the offender’s discriminatory motives, the offence 

gets additionally an discriminatory aspect in the view of others. Thus we can conclude that 

“common criminal discrimination” is constructed in the same way as “hate crime” and 

therefore both have the same problems. They are both difficult to recognize in their 

subjectivity and they are both missing a clear concept that offers certainty. 

At present the police is obliged to register and conduct a police search in the cases of special 

discrimination that came to their attention. 

3.3 Monitoring criminal discrimination 

A consequence of the difference between specific and common criminal discrimination until 

now is that in the Netherlands only specific criminal discrimination is registered regularly 

while cases of common criminal discrimination are not registered separately but only as 

offences penalised in the Penal Code, their additional discriminative aspects being registered 

only exceptionally. There are plans to change this soon. 

A Dutch Monitor on Racism and Extremism is published in the Netherlands since several 

years. 12 It is collecting information about racist violence in the Netherlands. Some of these 

11 See the Art. 137c – Art. 137g Dutch Penal Code. 

12 J. van Donselaar, P.R. Rodrigues, Monitoring racisme and extremisme, 7 e rapportage, Anne Frank Stichting, 

Amsterdam, Universiteit Leiden, Department Bestuurskunde, Leiden, 2007. 

5

cases registered might belong to the category of criminal discrimination, but the definitions 

used in the Monitor on Racism and Extremism are not always the legal definitions. That 

makes it difficult, perhaps even impossible, to use the data of this Monitor together with the 

data registered in connection with prosecuting and sentencing specific criminal 

discrimination. 13 

3.4 Recent Dutch research on criminal discrimination 

3.4.1 Introduction 

In the Netherlands research on criminal discrimination took place recently covering the period 

2000 – 2005. 14 It was initiated by the Dutch Permanent Parliamentary Committee on Justice 

in 2006 that wanted to be informed on the use of criminal law in the fight against 

discrimination and on the question whether present sentences were high enough and effective. 

The research tried to determine in which way the Department of Public Prosecution and the 

courts dealt with cases of criminal discrimination. 

For what concerns specific criminal discrimination all data registered in the Netherlands 

between 2000 and 2005 were analysed in this research. Therefore principally the research 

result answers the quantitative question of “how often was a certain decision taken” for the 

whole country. 

Nevertheless the fact that there were only relatively few cases registered makes it probable 

that the dark number of cases is high and consequently there exist certain reserves about the 

representativeness of the cases that came to the attention of the police. 

In the field of common criminal discrimination the lack of data is even greater. Accordingly 

the research could only be based on 91 case studies. That means the results cannot offer more 

than a first impression of what is reality in this field. 

3.4.2 Some results of the research on specific criminal discrimination 

Between 2000 and 2005, the Dutch Public Prosecution Service issued 803 summonses – on 

average 58% of the 1.453 specific discrimination offences that came to the attention of the 

13 Ch. Brants, R. Kool, A. Rignalda, Strafbare discriminatie, WODC 2007, p. 213. 

14 Ch. Brants, R. Kool, A. Rignalda, Strafbare discriminatie, see above, 2007. 

6

prosecutors during the research period. On average, the prosecution was dropped in a good 

20% of cases, and 16% were settled out of court by means of a prosecutor’s fine (transaction). 

To illustrate the meaning of these data we relate the number of specific discrimination cases 

of one year to the total number of criminal law cases that came to the attention of the Public 

Prosecutor Service during the same year. In 2004 this were 273.974 cases, 141 of which or 

0,05 % being specific discrimination cases. 15 

According to the registered data each year between 2000 and 2005, Dutch courts convicted in 

between 93 and 118 specific discrimination cases, with on average about 9% overall 

acquittals. 16 

The total number of cases settled by the Dutch district courts in 2004 was 133.218 Penal Law 

cases, only 48 of them or 0,04% being specific discrimination cases. 17 

Most of all kind of cases take place on the street or in the neighbourhood. Focusing on the 

offences the research resulted in the following: 

54% of the cases were verbal discriminations, in 30% of the cases aggression was involved, in 

about 4-5% of the cases vandalism and property offences. 18 

2/3 of the verbal discriminations were committed individually and one third together with 

others. 

When violence played a role twice as many cases were committed with a group than 

individually. 19 

52% of the offenders did not use alcoholics or drugs, 41% were under influence of alcoholics, 

4% of drugs and 4% of both. 20 

There were three main reasons for discrimination found: In 29% of the cases Turkish or 

Arabian ethnicity was decisive, in 23% the colour and in 22% anti-Semitism. The Islam was 

only registered as reason in 4% and religion in 3% of the cases. 21 

15 N.E. de Lange, A.M. van der Laan, S. Bogaerts, Vervolging en berechting in: W. van der Heide, A.Th.J. 

Eggen, Criminaliteit en rechtshandhaving 2006, Onderzoek en beleid 255, Boon, CBS, WODC 2007, p. 421. 


17 N.E. de Lange, A.M. van der Laan, S. Bogaerts, Vervolging en berechting in: W. van der Heide, A.Th.J. 

Eggen, Criminaliteit en rechtshandhaving 2006, Boon, CBS, WODC 2007, p. 432. 



20 Ch. Brants, R. Kool, A. Rignalda, Strafbare discriminatie WODC 2007, p. 302. 


7

81% of the offenders were autochthones, 16% not Western allochthones and 3% Western 

allochthones. 10% of the offenders were women. 55% of the offenders were between 18 and 

35 years of age. With growing age the number of discriminatory offences decreased. 22 

The finding that offenders discriminating for reasons of anti-Semitism are relatively very 

young is striking: 68% of these offenders were 12-25 years of age, more than half of them 

belonging to the age group of those 12-17 years of age. 23 

Another interesting research question was, in how far the offenders are acting from 

conviction. 

Little more aggressive offenders were acting without conviction than from conviction (30% 

versus 26%). 

Those acting without conviction primarily are committing verbal discrimination. Offenders 

acting from conviction relatively often are committing daub. 

Offenders discriminating from conviction are using less alcoholics, relatively seldom (4%) 

drugs and more often no psychotropic substances (71%) than the offenders who do not act 

from conviction (49%). 24 

Looking at the sentencing practice fines and task penalties (community service orders) are the 

most frequently used sanctions. Of the 948 cases 41,8 % ended with a fine and 25,4% with a 

task penalty. If discriminative offences were combined with aggression or serious aggression 

(offences with threat of life) the offenders were in most cases sentenced to prison sentences: 

in 1,7% of the 948 settled cases to a sentence of 6 months or less and in 6,5% of all settled 

cases to a sentence of more than 6 months. 25 

In 70% of cases of specific discrimination the prosecution was founded only on the 

discriminatory offence. 

The results generally show that specific criminal discrimination as far as it came to the 

attention of the Public Prosecution Service is likely to be neither in quantity nor in quality 

very serious. However, what we know until now is only a little part of reality. Perhaps for this 

reason most research findings arouse our curiosity. 

3.4.3 Some results from the study on common criminal discrimination 





8

3.4.3.1 Introduction 

As already stated before, common criminal discrimination appears in committing offences of 

all kind, the victim being somebody hated or belonging to a group of people disdained. Till 

now in the Netherlands there is no clear definition of common criminal discrimination 

formulated. In the discussion with representatives of the police, the public prosecution service 

and the judges during the so-called scenario conference, being part of the research on criminal 

discrimination, this lack of definition resulted in a wide diversity of opinions about the scope 

of this group of offences. The opinions were not only differing between the three professional 

groups, but also within the groups themselves. 

As already stated before, for continental jurists it is a problem to accept a subjective motive as 

element of an offence, those principally being facts. Furthermore continental jurists are not 

trained to use subjective elements in practice as these do not really belong to their legal 

system. 

Therefore, summarizing we can say that the phenomenon ‘common criminal discrimination’ 

is not legally structured, can hardly be identified by facts, must be recognized mainly 

intuitionally and is extremely difficult to prove. It depends on subjective beliefs of the 

offender as well as on subjective observations and insights of the those who have to detect, to 

prosecute and to judge. Cases of common criminal discrimination in this way are surrounded 

by a great deal of uncertainties. 

3.4.3.2 Some findings of the research on common criminal discrimination 26 

Common discrimination is in most cases (96%) committed by violence against a person 

(54%) or by threat of violence against a person (42% of all cases). The offences of common 

discrimination are committed more often (42%) in a group than offences of specific 

discrimination (26%). 

The places where common criminal discrimination primarily is committed are, as in the case 

of special criminal discrimination, the street and the neighbourhood. A third place is the 

catering industry. In specific and common discrimination cases the victim does contribute 

only seldom, namely in 10% of the cases. 

26 Ch. Brants, R. Kool, A. Rignalda, Strafbare discriminatie, WODC 2007, p. 311, 312. 

9

There is more use of psychotropic substances found in connection with common 

discrimination (65%) found than with specific discrimination (48%). The difference being 

mainly more use of alcoholics (common discrimination: 57% , specific discrimination: 41%). 

The use of alcoholics fits in with the offences committed: 42% of those committing violence 

against persons, 33% committing threat and 22% committing maltreatment (assault) had 

drunk alcoholics. 

These findings give a first impression about the kind of common discrimination cases 

sentenced in the Netherlands and it becomes obvious that they belong to a category in which 

the facts, namely aggression, are decisive for prosecution and sentencing and not so much the 

mental attitude of the offender. This finding points into the direction that the Public 

Prosecution Service and the judges are generally keeping in line with the continental law 

principals; they do not tend into the direction of the American “hate crime concept” but 

prefer to leave the decision, whether or not sharper sentencing is necessary in connection with 

the discriminative motives that were at the basis of the individual offence in question, to the 

discretion of the judges and their assessment of penalty. 

3.4.4 Need of continuous monitoring 

The findings of the Dutch research are a start in the direction of exploring criminal 

discrimination in several perspectives. They inform us for the first time in some measure 

about what is happening in this field in prosecutorial and court practice. This kind of research 

should be continued and extended. Only regular monitoring of criminal discrimination is a 

guarantee that we are able to develop adequate means to prevent and repress discrimination 

successfully. To know whether our efforts are effective we also need a monitor that 

continuously is watching the effectiveness of our practice. Regular monitoring and research 

have to be the fundament of legal policies and law making and of prosecution and sentencing 

guidelines. Furthermore it can serve as a review medium of research and fieldwork. 

Further research can help to improve our knowledge about the quantity and quality of both, 

common and specific criminal discrimination. Future research should focus in the first place 

on the dark number of these offences that might be rather high. English research that 

emphatically and successfully stimulated the police to register information that victims and 

10

third persons lay with it, resulted in a strong increase of registered cases, not necessarily of 

the number of convictions. 27 

At present criminal discrimination cases often are not suitable for a criminal charge as the 

public prosecutor is not able to substantiate the facts and, what is even more difficult, the 

motives. In the few cases that come to court the sentences are relatively often lower than the 

prosecutor’s demand for a penalty. 28 

Regular monitoring might perhaps lead us to a better understanding of the connections 

between these facts and give clues for adequate management. 

3.4.5 Necessity to raise the maxima of penalties for criminal discrimination in the Dutch 

Penal Code 

The Dutch research on criminal discrimination also had to find an answer to the question 

whether the Dutch Penal Code should be amended once more within a short lapse of time to 

create the possibility of inflicting harsher punishments for discriminatory offences. 29 

Considering the main pros and cons one came to the conclusion that it is neither necessary to 

introduce higher maxima for specific criminal discrimination again, nor to introduce a special 

regulation that offers the possibility of higher sanctions in cases any offence was committed 

on the basis of discriminatory motives. The Dutch Penal Code offers already enough 

possibilities for adequate sentencing. But, as the empirical research proved, until now these 

possibilities are not at all used to their full extent in practice. 

The Dutch Minister of Justice subscribes to this view and does not plan to change the law for 

so far. 

3.4.6. Consequences of the research for criminal policies 

In his reaction on the report on “Criminal Discrimination” the Dutch Minister of Justice 

stressed 30 that there must be respect for everybody in society. Discrimination injures the 

principles of the constitutional state and must be tackled by preventive and repressive 

measures. Furthermore he wrote in his letter addressed to parliament, that he is about to 

27 Home Office, Race and the Criminal Justice System, An Overview of the Complete Statistics 2004-2005, 

2006: www.homeoffice.gov.uk 

28 Ministry of Justice, Nieuwsbericht of 10 January 2008, www.minjus.nl/actueel/nieuwsberichten 

29 Ch. Brants, R. Kool, A. Ringnalda, Strafbare Discriminatie, WODC 2007, p. 219. 

30 Letter of 20 December 2007, Beleidsreactie WODC onderzoek Strafbare discriminatie. 

11

improve the methods of registration of and criminal policy on criminal discrimination, the 

main means being: 

firstly a better cooperation of the partners, i.e. the police, the Department of Public 

Prosecution, the local councils and the antidiscrimination bureaus, 

secondly a new common “Instruction Discrimination” (Aanwijzing Discriminatie) and 

thirdly gathering more information on discrimination that takes place on internet. 

4. Some Comparative Law Annotations 

Above, in connection with the presentation of the subjects “hate crime” and “criminal 

discrimination” we already talked about the important differences between the continental, the 

American and to a somewhat lesser extent, the English legal system, most important 

difference being in the understanding of the principle of legality in the sense of nullum crimen 

sine lege, (no crime without a statutory regulation) and nulla poena sine lege, (no sentencing 

without a statutory regulation). Most differences between the legal families have historical 

reasons. Our principle of legality derived as the Latin words already made obvious, from 

Roman law. The extent of the Roman law influence on the different legal systems of the 

world is until our times one of the main reasons for the existing differences. Mainly for 

political reasons the influence of Roman law on the development of German law was more 

intensive than in other countries. In connection with this fact we should, here in Berlin, think 

for a moment of one of the greatest German law professors, Friedrich Carl von Savigny 

(1779-1861), who worked in this town, however in the field of private law. Speaking in 

modern terms von Savigny was a “great fan of Roman law” and the influence of his 

outstanding work on the German Civil Code resulted in the fact that German private law still 

in our days is so strongly related to Roman law. Here we have one example to show how 

differences between legal systems can come to existence by chance. The reasons for the 

differences between the regulations of specific discrimination also mainly have historical 

backgrounds and they are so great that it is hardly possible to compare the regulations of 

various countries in a satisfying way. The same is true for the specific regulations on 

blasphemy and the spreading of blasphemous writings regulated for example in the Art. 147 

12

and 147a Dutch Penal Code, religion-related discriminatory offences that should also be 

discussed when focusing on criminal discrimination. In the framework of this paper there is 

no time to do more than just pay attention to them. However, since religion returned into the 

public domain these regulations, that were already almost forgotten since years received an 

unforeseen renaissance and actuality. Already before, but to a greater extent after the murder 

of Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam in November 2004 they were discussed again and at the 

same time became objects of interesting research. 31 

5. Conclusions 

1) It is advisable to use the term “criminal discrimination” instead of the term “hate crime” 

not only for legal – but also for psychological reasons. 

Furthermore, choosing the term “criminal discrimination” we also take the advantage to 

construct a link with discrimination in general. 

2) Monitoring criminal discrimination regularly and in detail is needed to gather information 

in order to develop not only adequate preventing and repressing measures but also to evaluate 

the measures and their effectiveness in practice. 

3) Research to learn more about the quantity and quality of the dark number of criminal 

discrimination should be initiated in the short run. 

4) Continental penal law has not the task to tackle wrong motives, beliefs, opinions etc. Only 

at the moment that these inner ideas become manifest in an act or omission that is 

criminalized by law, penal law comes in action. 

5) The force of historically grown principles of law and elements of legal culture should not 

be underestimated. Overruling them will have negative consequences for the effectiveness of 

the new rules and the old rules that stay in existence. 

February 2008 

31 B.A.M. van Stokkom, H.J.B.Sackers, J.-P. Wils, Godslastering, discriminerende uitingen wegens godsdienst 

en haatuitingen. Een inventariserende studie, WODC, Onderzoek en Beleid 248, Boom 2007. 

13

Monitoring Hate Crime - CEP, the European Organisation for ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?